Stability of the "experimental" 64-bit build

Generally I prefer to install 64-bit versions of programs that I use. For now, I've allowed the classification "experimental" to prevent me from installing the 64-bit version of Vivaldi. Does anyone have positive or negative experiences with the 64-bit builds of Vivaldi?

Personally, I don't notice a difference in "stability" between the 32-bit version and the 64-bit version.

I too had let the "experimental" label prevent me from trying it. I wanted to have a 64-bit browser on my 64-bit Windows. After all, even Microsoft says if you're using a 64-bit operating system and you want to decide between the 32-bit version and the 64-bit version of a software, then always pick the 64-bit as it'll run better with Windows.

So I decided to try out the 64-bit version anyway. After having used the 32-bit version, I found the 64-bit version faster on my laptop, though that was many snapshots ago. Stability about the same, speed even better on the 64-bit if you're running a 64-bit version of Windows.

So, as a question to the Vivaldi team, when WILL the 64-bit version stop having the classification of "experimental"?

Generally I prefer to install 64-bit versions of programs that I use.
For now, I've allowed the classification "experimental" to prevent me from installing the 64-bit version of Vivaldi.
Does anyone have positive or negative experiences with the 64-bit builds of Vivaldi?

I use the x64 versions just for testing purposes, not because the stability but because there is very little point on using them.

After many months the stability, I think, is about on par with x86 versions.

I immediately noticed one thing during installation.
Vivaldi 64-bit default installation folder appears to be "Program Files (x86)"
Maybe it had something to do with my previous 32-bit version.
Anyway, I took the liberty of correcting this into "Program Files".

I immediately noticed one thing during installation.
Vivaldi 64-bit default installation folder appears to be "Program Files (x86)"
Maybe it had something to do with my previous 32-bit version.
Anyway, I took the liberty of correcting this into "Program Files".

Yes I think it's a glitch of the installer who looks to the previous installation path rather than the predefined one.

Your action was correct, although the program files division is just a convention. You can install any program on any directory, no matter if x86 or x64.

Anyway, I think the x64 is best when you're using a 64-bit operating system.

The short answer is, no.

The long answer was endlessly discussed here, when people asked for the not available at the time x64 version (mainly because they liked th 64 number better than 32).

In short (other than being less tested) x64 often isn't faster, it could be even slower, and has less plugin support.

The main reason for using a 64bit program large memory management doesn't apply well to Chromium based browsers, given their multiprocess nature. And each process (read each tab, plugin, extension) can access 2GB of ram if the underlying OS is a 64bit one.

In short there aren't big reasons against the use of x64 bit versions but there aren't either big reasons in favor of them.

In short there aren't big reasons against the use of x64 bit versions but there aren't either big reasons in favor of them.

So there aren't many differences and those in favor of x64 wouldn't surpass those in favor of x86 at the moment. Personnaly, you would stay with x86 (I presume) or x64 then ? I mainly used x64 to see if there were big crashes/slow down/bugs, but now this is stable enough, I wouldn't mind using the other version.

I figured that the x64 used more memory than the x86 version because of the fact that x64 code is written with double the amount of numbers than x86, right? Because it has to fill twice the amount of code.

But doesn't that mean that x86 code automatically fills empty digits when installed on an x64 OS? Wouldn't that take empty space?

In short there aren't big reasons against the use of x64 bit versions but there aren't either big reasons in favor of them.

So there aren't many differences and those in favor of x64 wouldn't surpass those in favor of x86 at the moment. Personnaly, you would stay with x86 (I presume) or x64 then ? I mainly used x64 to see if there were big crashes/slow down/bugs, but now this is stable enough, I wouldn't mind using the other version.

I'm an early adopter of X64 athlon, I'm using Xp64 since it was in beta, and the earliest x64 Linux distros.

The same was true for Opera. My main install was x64, altough I had the x86 version installed as well.

But back to Vivaldi I'm still using the x32 version as my main driver.

I figured that the x64 used more memory than the x86 version because of the fact that x64 code is written with double the amount of numbers than x86, right? Because it has to fill twice the amount of code.

But doesn't that mean that x86 code automatically fills empty digits when installed on an x64 OS? Wouldn't that take empty space?

X86 can't "see" as much memory as X64, so it can't use it. and doesn't. The mathematics of the number of ways in which 32 bits can be combined versus the number of ways 64 bits can be combined allows for several thousand times as many digital addresses that can be made with 64 bits, versus the limits of 32 bits. Since 64-bit software can understand so much more memory than 32-bit software can, it can use much more memory - by bigger multiples than are currently practical to build hardware for, not just double.

I figured that the x64 used more memory than the x86 version because of the fact that x64 code is written with double the amount of numbers than x86, right? Because it has to fill twice the amount of code.

But doesn't that mean that x86 code automatically fills empty digits when installed on an x64 OS? Wouldn't that take empty space?

X86 can't "see" as much memory as X64, so it can't use it. and doesn't. The mathematics of the number of ways in which 32 bits can be combined versus the number of ways 64 bits can be combined allows for several thousand times as many digital addresses that can be made with 64 bits, versus the limits of 32 bits. Since 64-bit software can understand so much more memory than 32-bit software can, it can use much more memory - by bigger multiples than are currently practical to build hardware for, not just double.

Thanks Ayespy. You seem to seek out every question I have and answer them to my satisfaction.

So the possibilities of x64 are so much greater in memory than x86, but it takes up double the memory. And if at this time hardware isn't ready to use it practically yet, then it would mean that we can't simply use it to it's full potential.

I guess that would make it a good reason to keep using an x86 browser in 2015, even if we are using x64 Windows, is what I'm getting from this.

After all, most browsers today are still 32-bit. And for now, that's probably for the best.

It doesn't require double the memory, as numbers don't have to be stored as 64 bits (or even 32) all the time. Parts of memory used to store processor registers will have to be 64 bits of course, but if you are programming you could specify that a particular section of memory holds a 16 bit value, or 32 - if you were sure the data to be put there would fit. I'm not going to say it'll use the same amount of memory, but "double" is a worst case rather than a requirement.

It doesn't require double the memory, as numbers don't have to be stored as 64 bits (or even 32) all the time. Parts of memory used to store processor registers will have to be 64 bits of course, but if you are programming you could specify that a particular section of memory holds a 16 bit value, or 32 - if you were sure the data to be put there would fit. I'm not going to say it'll use the same amount of memory, but "double" is a worst case rather than a requirement.

Hmm, not such a black and white topic, is it? It'd be so nice if I could figure out which is better for me—x86 or x64. I'm using Windows 10 64-bit, with 6GB of RAM. 64-bit Vivaldi has always worked perfectly for me, so I wonder if there's any point at all in moving back to 32-bit.

If 64-bit is doing fine for you, no need to change. If it was slowing your system and other programs down because of being a memory hog, that would be different. Vivaldi needs SOMEONE to test-run the 64-bit ver.

In all the time it's been out, I've only seen 3 or four mentions by users finding some bug in it that didn't also show up in the 32-bit, so it's not like it's gonna eat your PC.

It may, under some circumstance, run a tad faster than 32-bit. Probably not measurably so. It may, under some circumstances, use somewhat more memory than 32-bit. But if you're not suffering the "OMGZ Vivaldi stole all my memory!" fits, I see no point in your changing.

If 64-bit is doing fine for you, no need to change. If it was slowing your system and other programs down because of being a memory hog, that would be different. Vivaldi needs SOMEONE to test-run the 64-bit ver.

In all the time it's been out, I've only seen 3 or four mentions by users finding some bug in it that didn't also show up in the 32-bit, so it's not like it's gonna eat your PC.

It may, under some circumstance, run a tad faster than 32-bit. Probably not measurably so. It may, under some circumstances, use somewhat more memory than 32-bit. But if you're not suffering the "OMGZ Vivaldi stole all my memory!" fits, I see no point in your changing.

Yes, my laptop handled 64-bit perfectly fine, even with only 6GB of RAM. I have an Intel i5, and it's a year old.

The last many snapshots have made x64 Vivaldi much smoother on my laptop, and took away most of the heating. Though I now find with the last 2-3 snapshots, it'll heat up randomly. I end the GPU process in Vivaldi's task manager and the heating will dissipate rapidly.

My laptop doesn't die from it or anything. And on resetting it and using anti-virus and device boosting software, it's done a lot to make my laptop overall much faster and super smooth.

So I don't think it has to do only with the fact that Vivaldi is 64-bit. I did notice a little speed boost in 64-bit Vivaldi over 32-bit though.

It depends on the coding itself regarding 64-bit vs 32-bit. A good 64-bit software can run just as light as 32-bit I guess if written well. But there is a nice article which does give some good detail on 32-bit vs 64-bit:

One thing I've also heard is "64-bit is more secure than 32-bit because of it's larger, more complicated coding". Is there any truth to this?

I've run 64-bit in 1 GB, it really isn't a question of needing lots of RAM. I won't claim 64-bit was any actual advantage on that netbook, but it isn't like it crashed with Out of Memory errors either. Of course, I don't have 20 tabs open at a time either.

There are some hardware security features available in 64-bit processors that aren't in 32-bit processors, but I couldn't say that a 32-bit program was any less secure than a 64-bit program on the same computer.